Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

02-18-2017 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Who knows how many millions hate the sort of PC BS you defend...
Ok man...

The series of posts below, they've from this very thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
I stand before the Galactic High Court Of Social Justice Warring.

So, back in the day, when I was about 13-14, I was playing basketball with some kids in my grandmother's neighborhood, in an alley. I put my wallet and keys and stuff on the ground. My wallet fell open. One of the kids asked me, with a look of disgust, and I quote, "Ugh, why do have all these picture of n****rs in your wallet?" 1 of the pictures happened to be my GF. So, I paused, then shoved him into the garage, then forearm checked him in the throat and held him there whilst asking, "Why do I have what mother****er?" He didn't utter a peep. After about 30secs I let him go and he ran off like a coward.

The question is, am I a SJW or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
Technically you got offended on behalf of someone else, so I would have to say yes.

I suppose it was your wallet that was being insulted though, so if you defended its leathery virtue then we're going to have a 12 Angry Men situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
Also note I didn't call him A Racist because the r-word is a no-no word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
Also again, I was trying to get clarification whether my wallet was a confirmed n****r-lover or merely just liked n****rs a whole bunch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
This is an offensive post and I do not understand why you have made it.

I really don't want actually racist language in the thread.


Do you understand that people who are against SJWs are not pro racism and racist language?

Stop with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
5ive is a racist. He always has been.

How much more does it need to be spelled out?
02-18-2017 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Yes, I'm pretty sure he's not "alt-right"* or anything close to a white supremacist, and I'm also pretty sure people like you and many writers like those at Vox will try to push him into that basket by taking stupid jokes out of context, even jokes designed to make fun of people like you taking stupid jokes out of context.
I mean he's not, but.....

Quote:
The real story with PewDiePie is not that somebody you’re preconditioned to hate — whether out of personal distaste for his combination of Euro-DJ obliviousness and shrieking energy, or because you dismiss his industry at large, or because you’re incredulous that anybody could make this much money doing basically nothing — got his just deserts. That’s missing the point, because PewDiePie himself is beside the point. He is one of 50 million-and-one drops in an ocean, caught in a tide toward a nasty shore.
PewDiePie is one of 50 million-and-one drops in an ocean, caught in a tide toward a nasty shore.

The online alt-right is built on lulz, and on an insulated privilege enjoyed by people without any personal context for or historical understanding of the things their privilege lets them say. Rewriting Felix Kjellberg’s history to make him a monster — pulled along by the gravity of recent high-impact cautionary tales like those of Milo Yiannopolous and Richard Spencer — is investigative laziness that obscures a much more important fact: that “edgelords,” the boys and men who group together online for the explicit proliferation of hate speech and misogyny, will almost inevitably keep pushing the line until they end up in a truly dark place.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobclifto...Aq9#.mj0y7pPYd

so how did Felix Kjellberg respond to the issue

Quote:
PewDiePie has found himself in the middle of a firestorm this week, and his latest video about the situation makes the bizarre assertion that The Wall Street Journal, threatened by his success and influence, is out to hurt him financially.
Quote:
“Kjellberg had, either instinctively or intentionally, constructed a political identity as YouTube’s insider class-traitor, raging against a system that’s — trust him, but also he’s just joking, but he would know — totally rigged,” reads a recent article in The New York Times Magazine. “Now he is sketching out what a far more toxic YouTube politics of ressentiment might look like, under the threadbare cover of ironic bigotry, the recent history of which is worryingly instructive. In the meantime, the self-identified real racists are laughing along heartily, even as Kjellberg strenuously attempts to distance himself from them.”

It is likely that Kjellberg will respond to these criticisms by saying that The New York Times being jealous of his influence, but that’s a hard sell in 2017. Trump’s very publicly used that same move again and again to diminishing returns.

Kjellberg finds himself stuck in the same loop Trump fell into after Michael Flynn’s resignation: The situation is real, and the man resigned, but Trump argues that the news saying so is fake. Similarly, Kjellberg states his jokes were offensive, and he apologizes, but continues to blame the press for putting him in this current situation.
http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/18/146...p-anti-semitic
02-18-2017 , 07:03 PM
As Huey is posting now, and what Foldn, Lord and so many of the people defending the alt right trolls here don't understand is how the "anti SJW" crowd started. They started as trolls online, on places like iRC and 4chan and others. These are places that just did stuff like doxx females, circulate nudes of underage girls and so, so many other deplorable things for "lulz." Out of this culture, people like pdp came. It is a culture of doing bad things for shock value, then laughing and pointing at the people offended at doing the things you shock them with.
02-18-2017 , 09:55 PM
Those are all fine and dandy opinions, yall. Of course, they could just be clueless Reefer Madness
02-18-2017 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Those are all fine and dandy opinions, yall. Of course, they could just be clueless Reefer Madness
Triggered
02-18-2017 , 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
As Huey is posting now, and what Foldn, Lord and so many of the people defending the alt right trolls here don't understand is how the "anti SJW" crowd started. They started as trolls online, on places like iRC and 4chan and others. These are places that just did stuff like doxx females, circulate nudes of underage girls and so, so many other deplorable things for "lulz." Out of this culture, people like pdp came. It is a culture of doing bad things for shock value, then laughing and pointing at the people offended at doing the things you shock them with.
please post this again using simpler words.

i don't want to reply to something i misunderstand.
02-18-2017 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
As Huey is posting now, and what Foldn, Lord and so many of the people defending the alt right trolls here don't understand is how the "anti SJW" crowd started. They started as trolls online, on places like iRC and 4chan and others. These are places that just did stuff like doxx females, circulate nudes of underage girls and so, so many other deplorable things for "lulz." Out of this culture, people like pdp came. It is a culture of doing bad things for shock value, then laughing and pointing at the people offended at doing the things you shock them with.
Once you connect this to the RW culture of mockery and identity derision which circulates on talk radio, a bigger picture of a bigger trend is traceable.

One set of groups of ideological partisan mockers met and fell in hate with new, younger other groups of just plain mockers. And the alt-write and the 45's republicans were born.

Asking questions like "How did the ideas and behaviors of "virtual boot-stomping" develop in RW information age cultures?" leads to these connections.
02-18-2017 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Once you connect this to the RW culture of mockery and identity derision which circulates on talk radio, a bigger picture of a bigger trend is traceable.

One set of groups of ideological partisan mockers met and fell in hate with new, younger other groups of just plain mockers. And the alt-write and the 45's republicans were born.

Asking questions like "How did the ideas and behaviors of "virtual boot-stomping" develop in RW information age cultures?" leads to these connections.
why make this so simplistic? it's not as clear cut as you make it seem.
02-18-2017 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
why make this so simplistic? it's not as clear cut as you make it seem.
I hear ya. Listening to countless hours of radio and reading endless streams of people output is actually hard to simplify. It have no intent to make it all seem clear cut. The connections and patterns that relate various individuals and groups under 'new trump authoritarianism' are not at all very clear cut. It's actually damn odd people like rural nativists are in a sort of coalition with anonymous internet mockers, from the surface.
02-18-2017 , 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
please post this again using simpler words.

i don't want to reply to something i misunderstand.
Here's my general view of political correctness. All social groups of size have speech codes that are supposed to govern professional life and polite society. One of the purposes of these codes is to alert people as to what things are offensive to say. These can be around moral topics, or religion, royalty, politics, class, sex, and so on. American business, educational, political, and popular culture has become more diverse and some formerly outcast or somewhat stigmatized groups are becoming socially acceptable (eg Jews, black people, women, gays, trans) in higher and broader circles of power. Part of the process of being accepted into these cultures is that the speech codes change to exclude offensive terms for these groups as well.

Most of political correctness is a way of describing these changing speech codes. People opposed to political correctness fall into a few camps. Some people are like Milo - these are basically trolls, provocateurs, satirists, comedians, whatever. Basically, people who enjoy shocking mainstream society, who want to break social rules just because they are there. There is always an audience for these people in the US, as good jokes are often made from attacking manners, and people like their rebellious image.

Some are people with more abstract objections to speech codes or who object to the way in which these new speech codes are enforced. Most people don't like to change their values too much, and there can be political value in protecting older values, so sometimes new speech codes are enforced through authoritarian or illiberal methods. People get suspicious of how sincere these liberal critics are, but I think that at least some of them are sincere, eg Sam Harris is one of the more sincere people in public life.

Some are people who are just opposed to the new codes because they aren't comfortable with including these new social groups into mainstream society. They don't want trans, gays, black people, etc to be acceptable or representative of mainstream society. Thus, they disagree with the motivation for not offending these groups in the first place.

Last edited by Original Position; 02-18-2017 at 11:37 PM. Reason: accuracy
02-18-2017 , 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
But I have shown you lots of evidence of the left moving towards illiberalism. You just reject and dismiss it. It's just fringe, not representative, you say. Okay.
I guess we have a different understanding of what counts as evidence.

I'd like to point out here how closely my defense of the left from illiberalism mimics your own defense of the right from charges of racism or sexism. You argue that the right or people opposed to PC culture are not all racists as they are painted by progressives. You argue that bigotry is probably declining, as it has for a long time, and that the claim that it isn't on the part of the left is the result of emphasizing fringe right-wing elements and misrepresenting the views of more mainstream people. You say that people on the left shouldn't be so concerned about a rise of racism/sexism/fascism from the right.

Well, ceteris paribus.

Quote:
Meanwhile, we're immersed in another smothering wave of PC 2.0 with all the abusers of it that you also dismiss (likely because you rarely argue with them about anything substantial, because you largely agree with them), and it's clear as day to anyone who's felt the overwhelming frustration of such attempted thought control how Trump has been able to seize upon that sentiment to get away with saying some of the worst things.
The bolded is incorrect.

Also, here you are responding to my argument - one I've made numerous times and you've never addressed - by claiming that I disagree with you because of my lack of experience in arguing with leftists in the right way. Huh. Isn't that your main complaint - leftists responding to arguments by attacking the biases of the person making it instead of addressing the argument itself?

Quote:
The rest of your post on liberalism is great, and I'd like to get into it later, how Christianity has evolved through liberal ideas to become much less of an authoritarian backards religion. It's still a far cry from being liberal though. Please.
Okay. Let's get into it now as the main topic is getting tired.
02-19-2017 , 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Here's my general view of political correctness... Some people are like Milo - these are basically trolls... Some are people with more abstract objections to speech codes or who object to the way in which these new speech codes are enforced... Some are people who are just opposed to the new codes because they aren't comfortable with including these new social groups into mainstream society...
I really don't think this whole "PC Police" topic can be discussed minus the "Run Amok" part. This whole phenomenon was basically think tank created c1990.

The OSJer 'movement' is astroturf. It's propaganda. The purpose it serves is to conveniently and effectively shut down a wide range of conversations. Unequal pay for equal work, redlining, the burden of unwaged work falling mainly on woman, etc, etc are very profitable practices. The OSJer 'movement' is a rear guard action to preserve that privilege.

The intellectual leaders, or public faces, of the OSJer 'movement' might be trolls, or have real (but marginal) concerns, or just be deplorables, as you say. IMO the rank-n-file OSJer is much, much different.

Your rank-n-file OSJer has been indoctrinated by this propaganda.

They don't have an intellectual grounding for what they believe and do. Instead they've been brainwashed y/o think it's cool, hip, and edgy. IRL they're like the proverbial toad, who'll tongue flick at any object going by at a certain speed. They'll wait till they hear one of their trigger words, then gleefully destroy the conversation by whining about the Run Amok PC Police.

Online, we see just how much of a learned & regurgitated behavior this shiz really is.

Online these brainwashed fools repeat IRL 'talking points' that just simply don't translate or even make since over the interwebs. Prime examples are "yelling an screaming" and being "shouted down", which are simply logical impossibilities. IRL nobody pursues the meta-conversation the OSJers derail to, because IRL it's easy for the OSJers to avoid such, and IRL who wants to waste their time discussing nonsense with a disagreeable deplorable. Online it's easy to pursue that meta-conversation, and what do we find: OSJers don't have any 'arguments' at all, just some memorized 'talking points', and they'll universally refuse to engage in that meta-conversation under any circumstances.
02-19-2017 , 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Those are all fine and dandy opinions, yall. Of course, they could just be clueless Reefer Madness
No argument found.
02-19-2017 , 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
I really don't think this whole "PC Police" topic can be discussed minus the "Run Amok" part. This whole phenomenon was basically think tank created c1990.

The OSJer 'movement' is astroturf. It's propaganda. The purpose it serves is to conveniently and effectively shut down a wide range of conversations. Unequal pay for equal work, redlining, the burden of unwaged work falling mainly on woman, etc, etc are very profitable practices. The OSJer 'movement' is a rear guard action to preserve that privilege.

The intellectual leaders, or public faces, of the OSJer 'movement' might be trolls, or have real (but marginal) concerns, or just be deplorables, as you say. IMO the rank-n-file OSJer is much, much different.

Your rank-n-file OSJer has been indoctrinated by this propaganda.

They don't have an intellectual grounding for what they believe and do. Instead they've been brainwashed y/o think it's cool, hip, and edgy. IRL they're like the proverbial toad, who'll tongue flick at any object going by at a certain speed. They'll wait till they hear one of their trigger words, then gleefully destroy the conversation by whining about the Run Amok PC Police.

Online, we see just how much of a learned & regurgitated behavior this shiz really is.

Online these brainwashed fools repeat IRL 'talking points' that just simply don't translate or even make since over the interwebs. Prime examples are "yelling an screaming" and being "shouted down", which are simply logical impossibilities. IRL nobody pursues the meta-conversation the OSJers derail to, because IRL it's easy for the OSJers to avoid such, and IRL who wants to waste their time discussing nonsense with a disagreeable deplorable. Online it's easy to pursue that meta-conversation, and what do we find: OSJers don't have any 'arguments' at all, just some memorized 'talking points', and they'll universally refuse to engage in that meta-conversation under any circumstances.
This is absolutely correct, but even if you think it isn't, answer this:

Where are the alt-right arguments? Surely a movement that Trolly, ShameTrolly, Wookie, Fly and the rest of us have created must have some adherents here at two plus two, right? Where are they? All we have are "liberals" so outraged at "SJW"s that they create 57-part Youtoobz about them.

The alt-right doesn't spread their message, because their message is stupid and hateful and idiotic. They know this. So they create "gamergate" and do a lot of serious pretending.
02-19-2017 , 12:24 PM
Another way to say the same thing about this whole OSJer/SJWer phenomenon...

When out-of-the-closet race realists start pushing their pseudo-science, is it best to engage them solely on the level of scientific debate? The answer is 'no', of course. Engaging those fools solely on the level of scientific debate only legitimizes their pseudo-science. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on why they are pushing this propaganda, is called for.

It's the same with these OSJers.

Taking their whining and rationalizations at face value only legitimizes their odious conversation destroying behaviors. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on who is pushing this propaganda, and why, is called for.
02-19-2017 , 12:49 PM
shamefully SJWs in sports writing want athletes to get paid, lgbt players to be out in the open and head injuries to not kill footbal players https://theringer.com/how-sportswrit...aba#.u0seqlf0p
02-20-2017 , 07:00 PM
I'm still waiting to hear literally ANY examples of things people want to say that aren't being allowed because of the "SJW movement".
02-20-2017 , 07:33 PM
Populist correctness: the new PC culture of Trump's America and Brexit Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw
Quote:
As well as silencing opposing opinions by branding them elitist, populist correctness works to rebrand ideas, creating a new vocabulary for a new world order. The right prides itself on being straight-talking, on calling a spade a spade, but when it comes to calling a Nazi a Nazi or a racist a racist – well then, things are more vague. They are the “alt-right”, please. Use unacceptable terminology and they will get very angry indeed.

But what’s this? I thought an easily triggered outrage button was the preserve of politically correct liberals? From the vitriol the right heaps on “sensitive snowflakes”, you’d think they have skins as thick as elephants. Far from it: nobody is offended by quite such a wide range of banal things as conservatives. Everything from insufficiently Christmassy Starbucks coffee cups to Budweiser ads to Kermit the Frog’s lack of trousers seems to cause an outpouring of outrage. And, while jokes about minorities or women may be considered just banter, don’t even try joking about white people – that’s reverse-racism! Indeed, many triggered rightwingers recently deleted their Netflix accounts in protest against a new comedy show called Dear White People.

Holiday greetings are another hot-button issue. A survey by Public Policy Polling found “very conservative” Americans were more than twice as likely to be personally offended by someone saying “Happy holidays” to them (21%) as “very liberal” respondents to be offended by someone saying “Merry Christmas” (10%) to them.

Kneeling down can also trigger conservatives. Last year, the American football player Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the national anthem to protest against racism. This caused distress to many “patriots”. A conservative post that went viral said: “My heart is exploding, my lungs are without air … my body is shaking, and tears are running down my face. Kaepernick … is refusing to stand for the national anthem.” But liberals are the sensitive snowflakes eh?

Trump is, of course, king of the snowflakes, flying into a rage at any hint of criticism. He has even, seemingly unironically, called for safe spaces. Last year, after cast members of Hamilton politely criticised Mike Pence, he tweeted: “The theater must always be a safe and special place. The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”
02-20-2017 , 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
please post this again using simpler words.

i don't want to reply to something i misunderstand.
Here is an article that explains it better than I would:

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.42h2ixzfi
02-20-2017 , 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
please post this again using simpler words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
why make this so simplistic?
He wants it as simple as he wants it and not a jot simpler, people!
02-20-2017 , 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
Another way to say the same thing about this whole OSJer/SJWer phenomenon...

When out-of-the-closet race realists start pushing their pseudo-science, is it best to engage them solely on the level of scientific debate? The answer is 'no', of course. Engaging those fools solely on the level of scientific debate only legitimizes their pseudo-science. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on why they are pushing this propaganda, is called for.

It's the same with these OSJers.

Taking their whining and rationalizations at face value only legitimizes their odious conversation destroying behaviors. Instead, a holistic response, one that centers on who is pushing this propaganda, and why, is called for.
Hear, hear.
02-21-2017 , 10:53 AM
Left wing political correctness is out of control

Quote:
The party affiliation on your voter registration card could block you from employment at Iowa’s state universities were a newly proposed bill by Senator Mark Chelgren to become law. Senate File 288, proposed by the Ottumwa legislator, could bring about a Soviet-style purge of liberal-leaning college staff in Iowa. Chelgren wants to impose an ideological litmus test in order to create a “partisan balance,” based on how Iowa has voted in past elections.

The legislation proposes that a “person shall not be hired as a professor or instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of faculty belonging to the other political party.”

The Secretary of State’s office would be directed to provide voter registration lists to the colleges so that new job applicants’ party affiliation could be checked before the hiring process gets underway. Graciously, Chelgren allows for people registered as No Party to slip through the process without facing the litmus test.

The obvious impact and purpose of this bill would be to ban Democrats from getting hired anymore at Iowa colleges. If you took a survey right now, it’s highly likely that Iowa professors are registered as Democrats at a much higher rate than Republican. So any new hires would be strictly limited to Republican or No Party voters.
http://iowastartingline.com/2017/02/...-universities/
02-21-2017 , 11:07 AM
Lol Iowa ends up with 0 party registered faculty voting for that party in elections.
02-21-2017 , 12:55 PM
Let it pass and then all the Democrats go and change their party registration to Republican. EZ game.

Which is what dereds said. I'm slow.
02-21-2017 , 01:00 PM
So the investigation into new fascism goes back years and it's "funny" so much of it is just being audacious out in the open. It literally seems to provoke satire.

A situation to face now is how many people are plainly unprepared for real nonsense?

Like what is even a plan for people who have been exposed to "wild" propaganda that is fascist in nature. People don't all know what to do when grandma shares poopcolorshirt propaganda on FB all summer.

Like do we justify the reality of actual influence-seeking nonsense non-socially, because that's like poking your eyes and ears out.

My "advise" to the 'SJW' in that spot was go find who grandma is getting memes from and observe.

And then fake news was born. Lets not deal with justifying that socially either, because we were even told 'words don't matter'.

What would warriors of justice acting socially be really doing during these real times?

And it's funny that word meanings are much stickier than they can seem in the short-term.

SJWs is one changed letter and arrangement from what?

"Who are we really talking about in politics today?" I ask socially and with justice.

      
m